*Team* ratings?

[Dexter Tauvao]

I don't know how this is going to work, but how are the teams ratings going to be decided?
I think Wales have dominated, and failed in rugby since the last rugby game?

Is there going to be a specific point in time where the ratings will be taken from?
Eg: after 2010 would mean the Springboks would be rated higher than NZ?
Or even after 2009 when Wales were dominating Europe? (wait, was it 2008 when Wales got their six nations slam?)

Or are they going to combine the last couple of years
(Boks 09 and NZ 10) or something?

Also, I find it a little unfair that teams with a low rating can't retain the ball too long, and if momentum is gained, a low ranked team hardly ever has the ball?

I guess once a game becomes a blowout this could happen, but Im sure teams like Japan, Samoa and Fiji can string at least 10 phases together against tier one teams?

I think momentum like this should be influenced a little more by the flankers and players in a team?

(what if Brüssow, McCaw and Juan Smith so happened to play for a club rated 60?)
would they still lose a lot of ball against say the Bulls or Tigers?

 

[R0L096]

Team ratings I think are done by working out the average of either just the starting 15 or starting 15 and subs(thats how its done on fifa 11 but may be different for rugby 2012), which is probably the fairest way to do it.

 

[Dexter Tauvao]

it'd be nice to see that, but yeah with the current system, you can put the worst South African players into the starting line ups, and they'd still have the overall rating of 89.. I like that idea you have

 

[dan the man]

I don't know how this is going to work, but how are the teams ratings going to be decided?
I think Wales have dominated, and failed in rugby since the last rugby game?

Is there going to be a specific point in time where the ratings will be taken from?
Eg: after 2010 would mean the Springboks would be rated higher than NZ?

That would make South Africa's rating very poor! They would be below NZ and Aussie, only just ahead of England.
As long as the "Player ratings are accurate then i'm not too bothered.
The overall team rating should fluctuate depending on who is selected in the match day 22 or just be fixed according to the IRB ranking as close to release date as possible.

 

[lance2010]

That would make South Africa's rating very poor! They would be below NZ and Aussie, only just ahead of England.
As long as the "Player ratings are accurate then i'm not too bothered.
The overall team rating should fluctuate depending on who is selected in the match day 22 or just be fixed according to the IRB ranking as close to release date as possible.

Yes this is spot on,fluctuate cause i like to mix the squads around abit

 

[dan the man]

Yes this is spot on,fluctuate cause i like to mix the squads around abit

Yeah, and when playing career mode you could have a few key players injured or not playing eg. playing as the All Blacks and having Dan Carter cited for 3 weeks (i'd love to see the citing commission added to the game), Richie McCaw and Mils Muliaina out with injury would dramatically lower the teams rating!

 

[nadoss]

oh, and wales' run was in '08. ireland ran the tables in '09

 

[Teh Mite]

In a computer game, Star ratings > Numerical ratings:

5*
New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, England, France, Ireland, Wales, Leicester, Northampton, Saracens, Munster, Leinster, Cardiff, Tolouse, Racing Metro, Clermont, Toulon, USAP, Crusaders, Tahs, Bulls, Sharks, Hurricanes. B&I Lions, Barbarians.

4*
Scotland, Wales, Fiji, Samoa, London Irish, Gloucester, Wasps, Harlequins, Bath, Ulster, Ospreys, Scarlets, Edinburgh, Montpellier, Biarritz, Castres, Stade, Cheifs, Blues, Cheetahs, Stormers, Brumbies. PI's.

3*
All remaining international sides, Sale, Exeter, Newport, Glasgow, Airioni, Benetton, Brive, Bayonne, Reds.

2*
Leeds, Agen, La Rochelle, (SA) Lions, Highlanders, Force

1*
Newcastle, Connaught, Bourgoin, Rebels

Then remember for the sake of gameplay that a 3* team should be competitive against a 5* team, 2* vs 4* and 1* vs 3* etc, however a 2* side will really struggle against 5* unless the skill difference of the players (as in the people holding the controllers) is massive.

 

[dan the man]

That's pretty much the way it's done in FIFA, it's simple and it works.
You can't really argue with it because it's not extremely accurate but it gives a good ballpark figure of how good each team is... Although I'd say that some international teams would be less than 3 stars eg. Romania, Russia, Uraguay, etc.and maybe add in half stars just to give it slightly more accuracy.
I know it's completely stealing FIFA's system but you could just replace the stars with "rugby balls" or "goal posts" it wouldn't really matter

 

[Teh Mite]

Nah, not as though Fifa own the copyright on stars yet (although Blatter may have a different opinion on that!)

TBF, a simple system guide element like that is all what is needed. Start ******* about with "dynamic team ratings" and it'll pull developmental resources away from other much more important elements of the game.

For example, when somebody talks about the All Blacks, they don't think "oh, if they don't have McCaw or Carter they'll be not quite so tough", they'll still think "oh ****, the All Blacks"! That should be refelected and the full strength team should be represented in their rating: 95% of the time that's how people will play the game, using the full strength team.

 

[dan the man]

At the end of the day the menu's and rating systems can be boring as hell. If the gameplay looks great and plays well the game will be mint!